Dhan Kaur vs State of Haryana and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The son of the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 28.2.1994 on contractual basis with Haryana Roadways Ambala Depot. He unfortunately expired on 6.5.1996 during the course of his service. The State Government issued policy dated 23.3.1998 whereby a decision had been taken to regularize the services of all Conductors/Driver working on contractual basis on completion of two years service. In the light of such policy decision, order dated 30.11.2009 was passed whereby the deceased son of the petitioner was taken to be regularized in service w.e.f. 28.3.1996. After the passing of such order of regularization, Pension Payment Order dated 15.3.2011 was issued whereby family pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner by the competent authority w.e.f. 21.7.2006. The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the Pension Payment Order dated 15.3.2011, Annexure P3, to the extent that the grant of family pension be not restricted w.e.f. 21.7.2006, but the same be made admissible with effect from the date of death of the son of the petitioner i.e. 6.5.1996.

The claim of the petitioner has been opposed by the State in terms of referring to notification dated 21.7.2006 appended as Annexure R1 along with the written statement whereby the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 11 (as applicable to the State of Haryana were amended and in Appendix I in relation to Family Pension Scheme, 1964, sub-para (iii) was substituted in para 4 and the parents who were wholly dependent on the concerned Government employee when he/she was alive, were made eligible for the grant of family pension. Still further, it has been averred in para 8 of the written statement that prior to issuance of notification dated 21.7.2006, there was no provision for the grant of family pension to the parents of an unmarried employee who dies in harness and the parents have been included in the list of dependents by the State of Haryana only vide notification dated 21.7.2006.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to rebut such stand taken on behalf of the State. Learned counsel has not referred to any provision whereby prior to 21.7.2006, the petitioner was eligible for the grant of family pension on account of the death of her son while in service. Learned counsel would, however, argue that once the benefit of family pension in the light of Pension Payment Order dated 15.3.2011 has been admitted, the same would necessarily have to relate back to the date of death of the son of the petitioner i.e. 6.5.1996. In furtherance of such submission, learned counsel would argue that even the notification dated 21.7.2006, Annexure P4, was liable to be quashed to the extent that the same has been made prospective in nature.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The facts of the present case are not in dispute. The son of the petitioner had died while in harness on 6.5.1996. In the light of order dated 30.11.2009, Annexure P1, he has been held to be regularized on completion of two years service i.e. with effect from 28.3.1996. It has not been disputed before this Court that the parents were included as dependents for purposes of grant of family pension by virtue of notification dated 21.7.2006. It is with effect from such date that the benefit of family pension has been granted to the petitioner. In terms of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the extension of such benefit with effect from the date even prior to the amendment in the Rule. In other words, a class of beneficiaries is sought to be evolved by way of judicial intervention. The same would not be a permissible exercise for this Court, In the garb of "equity" and "compassion", this Court cannot extend the benefit of the notification dated 21.7.2006 with effect from the date when the same was not even intended. In the absence of any provision having been brought to the notice of the Court in the light of which the petitioner was entitled to the grant of family pension on account of the death of her son while in service prior to 21.7.2006, the claim raised in the instant writ petition cannot be granted. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.